The patriot act, like the Progressive Democrat's Digges Amendment of Maryland, can, and will be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.

Now why would I use such an analogy, and is it accurate?

The Digges Amendment was passed by the legislature and approved by the Governor for the sole end of disenfranchising the African-Americans of their right to vote. However, the people of the State of Maryland had the foresight to see that it could, if anyone desired, be used against the Jew, the Pole, the Italian, and any other group not complying with the limitations on voting rights written into the amendment. The good people of the State of Maryland, by popular vote tossed the amendment out and into History.

When questioned about the amendment those who supported it whispered… "it will only be applied to Niggers, not Jews or Italians, or any other Immigrants… just the Niggers."

Well, guess what… when questioned about the, “The patriot act”… what answers do you get… perhaps…“It will only be applied to the (Immigrants) Terrorist”,… not the good Americans?

I think it's time the American People tossed this one out.

Hello DC:

I really don't know about the amendment you speak of. And, I wouldn't argue with your logic at all, because I agree with your conclusion.

I believe, however, the Patriot Act, on its face, disenfranchises ALL Americans of their civil rights.

excon

Hello DC:

I really don't know about the amendment you speak of. And, I wouldn't argue with your logic at all, because I agree with your conclusion.

I believe, however, the Patriot Act, on its face, disenfranchises ALL Americans of their civil rights.

excon
The amendment I speak of goes back to 1910, and given it was tossed out by popular vote, rather than legislative vote, I’m not surprised you are not familiar with it. But it does show that Legislators can sometimes become so caught-up in the, present moment, that they fail to see the full consequences of their actions. In 1910 they feared the African-American vote so much that it blinded them to reason… just as many legislators today (in fact there was only one dissenter to the patriot act) fear anti-American dissent.

Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.

I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform?

Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .

Hello DC:

I really don't know about the amendment you speak of. And, I wouldn't argue with your logic at all, because I agree with your conclusion.

I believe, however, the Patriot Act, on its face, disenfranchises ALL Americans of their civil rights.

excon


I would have to agree with excon on this one, the neo-con and their New World Order, don't want anything except slaves.

This administration don't care about the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, say Bush said, "It's only a piece of paper"

I believe the exact quote was "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.

I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform ??

Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it...... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .
For the most part, these freaks of ambition, sycophants all, on Capitol Hill called “Politicos”, have such weak Character they ebb first this way and then that. They paint on themselves a different face depending on the audience so that even they don’t know their own mind.

Who can keep-up with the changes… perhaps I am wrong in what I said; however, the analogy is based on the premise that an individual can be held with-out due process if he is branded a Terrorist.

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > 4th Circuit Upholds Due Process Rights of 'Enemy Combatants' (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120680.html)
Which Patriot act ;the original ;the one that was modified ;or the one that was reauthorized ? During each step it was reviewed and provisions that went to excess were removed. The ACLU last year dropped their lawsuit against the act because it had been revised to eliminate their constitutional concerns.

I wonder which is a greater threat to constitutional rights;the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform ??

Opponents of the Patriot Act are fond of complaining that few people have bothered to read it...... No kidding. Since it was enacted there was an instance identified where the FBI misused the laws provisions. The hated Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Dept. stepped in and smacked down the FBI over it. I keep on hearing hypotheticals about the potential for abuse but except the one noted I have not heard of any other .
Here is the latest I could find on the matter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, widely perceived as the most pro-government federal appeals court, has ruled against the Bush administration's position that the president has the authority to detain indefinitely anyone he unilaterally identifies as an "enemy combatant." Since Congress has not suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit said, the administration has to either charge Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident who has been held at the Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, since June 2003, or let him go.

They are all just playing with words when they talk about 'Terrorist', or 'enemy combatant'. That it is inhuman to hold a being with-out some due-process. All people have an inherent right to be charged, and their defense be heard in a court of law

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > 4th Circuit Upholds Due Process Rights of 'Enemy Combatants' (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120680.html)

I have heard of only one case where this was an issue. Ali A-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who attended college in the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Al-Marri then left the U.S.; he returned to the states on September 10, 2001, allegedly to attend graduate school at Bradley University.

Al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 in Illinois and was charged criminally, but in 2003 President Bush signed an order declaring Al-Marri an "enemy combatant." He has very clear links to al-Qaeda;in fact he doesn't deny it .

That did not stop the 4th Circuit Court to rule against Bush .The Fourth Circuit ordered that Al-Marri must be set free from military detention. After holding that Congress did not strip jurisdiction over the case in its 2005 and 2005 habeas legislation, the court held that the government does not have any authority to detain Al-Marri and has no "inherent" constitutional authority to do so.

The court rightly or wrongly decided that "enemy combatant" has narrow applications limited to military opponents in battle. Al- Marri only engaged in conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism intended to cause injury . Guess it would've been better if he were permitted to engage in terrorism before he was detained .In the courts view he was a civilian. That argument makes little sense to me .

Had he been a Nazi troop sans uniform in 1944 he could be held as enemy combatants .Heck if he were Afghan he could've been . But since he was planning on doing an act of war for a terrorist organization that's stated goal is the creation of a borderless Califate somehow he is a civilian at worse with criminal intent (remember he had not done his deed yet).Under this Al-Marri decision , the government has to either deport him or set him free.

Whatever criminal law violations he may or may not have committed are irrelevant, because he has violated the laws of war in my view . As an illegal enemy combatant he is entitled to neither a civilian trial, nor is he entitled to habeas protection.

I see you referenced the 4th Circuit's decision also . Good . I would also like to add that Bush justified this detention on the AUMF (Congressional Authorization to use Military Force after 9-11) . This really isn't a Patriot Act issue .

I see you referenced the 4th Circuit's decision also . Good . I would also like to add that Bush justified this detention on the AUMF (Congressional Authorization to use Military Force after 9-11) . This really isn't a Patriot Act issue .
As I said……….’Who can keep-up with the changes… perhaps I am wrong in what I said; However, the analogy is based on the premise that an American citizen can be held with-out due process if he is branded a Terrorist.’

As far as I know, it still holds that the Patriot Act allows that a person can be held with-out due process. You questioned this and I ask if this the case or not. Because if so my analogy still holds.

I used the example of the decision in the 4th District not to verify my contention against the Patriotic Act, but to show the contempt of Congress towards the Constitution.

Congress has no liberty to dismiss Human Rights, and it is my contention that, in any case where a human is held with-out the right to be charged, and the right to be heard, is as much a part of slavery as was the denial of the rights of Blacks to vote.

To amend my comments ;there are 2 other cases where American citizens were involved. They were Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi .

Padilla was plotting to set off a dirty bomb. A former gang member who had committed murder as a juvenile ,he had become a Muslim in prison, had returned to the United States from Pakistan in order to scout out possible targets for al-Qaeda attacks . For many reasons the courts were right in determining that he deserved due process rights ,

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan fighting for al-Qaeda . He was sent to GITMO before being transferred to a state side military brig when the gvt. Discovered he could claim American citizenship (his dad ,a Saudi was working in the US when he was born ). Americans have served in foreign armies in the past, and the courts has never suggested that their nationality entitles them to be treated differently from other combatants if they are detained.

The 1942 case of a group of Nazi saboteurs sent to U.S. shores to disrupt war industries is similar as I have pointed out in other postings . Like Padilla, the saboteurs were caught by civilian law enforcement, not by soldiers on a battlefield. And two of them, like Padilla and Hamdi, claimed American citizenship. Yet the courts ruled against them :
"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents." EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html)

Courts have never given enemy combatants lawyers to challenge their detention. How different, really, is an al-Qaeda operative bent on detonating a dirty bomb from a German saboteur during World War II? Clearly the dispute is if the war against jihadistan is a real war or just another law enforcement issue. I think the war is very real. But I will concede that the nature of the war is so different than in the past that a reasonable difference can be debated by reasonable people and reasonable solutions can be obtained.

I am of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So far we have had 2,127 days without a terrorist attack on US soil. That compares to the average of 1-2 attacks per year for the 40-year period before that. Whatever feelings you may have about the Patriot Act, it is clearly doing its job.

There are those who argue that the Patriot Act somehow disenfranchises them or takes away their rights. I have yet to see a case, however, where an average joe who is not involved with terrorist activity has been affected by the Patriot Act. To my best knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody has been arrested based on what library books they have looked at. No legitimate businessmen have been arested because of any wire-transfers of funds to other countries. No legitimate farmers have been arrested for purchasing amonium nitrate for use as fertilizer. No legitimate demolition specialists have been arrested for use of explosives used during the performance of their legitimate professions. No legal gun owners have been arrested for purchase of weapons legally. No innocent people have been arrested for having private conversations on the phone with their mothers. I haven't seen a single case of violation of an innocent citizen's rights due to the existence of the Patriot Act.

I have, however, seen 2,127 days without a terrorist attack on US soil.

That's good enough for me.

Elliot

To amend my comments ;there are 2 other cases where American citizens were involved. They were Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi .

Padilla was plotting to set off a dirty bomb. A former gang member who had committed murder as a juvenile ,he had become a Muslim in prison, had returned to the United States from Pakistan in order to scout out possible targets for al-Qaeda attacks . For many reasons the courts were right in determining that he deserved due process rights ,

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan fighting for al-Qaeda . He was sent to GITMO before being transferred to a state side military brig when the gvt. discovered he could claim American citizenship (his dad ,a Saudi was working in the US when he was born ). Americans have served in foreign armies in the past, and the courts has never suggested that their nationality entitles them to be treated differently from other combatants if they are detained.

The 1942 case of a group of Nazi saboteurs sent to U.S. shores to disrupt war industries is simular as I have pointed out in other postings . Like Padilla, the saboteurs were caught by civilian law enforcement, not by soldiers on a battlefield. And two of them, like Padilla and Hamdi, claimed American citizenship. Yet the courts ruled against them : EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html)

Courts have never given enemy combatants lawyers to challenge their detention. How different, really, is an al-Qaeda operative bent on detonating a dirty bomb from a German saboteur during World War II? Clearly the dispute is if the war against jihadistan is a real war or just another law enforcement issue. I think the war is very real. But I will concede that the nature of the war is so different than in the past that a reasonable difference can be debated by reasonable people and reasonable solutions can be obtained.It is not completely clear to me but you appear to be arguing/presenting/citing case law for the justification of denial of due process of law under the Patriotic Act; while I am making a philosophical argument/presenting/citing an historical event that is equivalent to the potential for government suppression of Civil Disobedience on the threat of being held without due process.

It appears you have a great deal more faith than I in government bureaucracies.
:D

I am of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So far we have had 2,127 days without a terrorist attack on US soil. That compares to the average of 1-2 attacks per year for the 40-year period before that. Whatever feelings you may have about the Patriot Act, it is clearly doing its job.

There are those who argue that the Patriot Act somehow disenfranchises them or takes away their rights. I have yet to see a case, however, where an average joe who is not involved with terrorist activity has been affected by the Patriot Act. To my best knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody has been arrested based on what library books they have looked at. No legitimate businessmen have been arested because of any wire-transfers of funds to other countries. No legitimate farmers have been arrested for purchasing amonium nitrate for use as fertilizer. No legitimate demolition specialists have been arrested for use of explosives used during the performance of their legitimate professions. No legal gun owners have been arrested for purchase of weapons legally. No innocent people have been arrested for having private conversations on the phone with their mothers. I haven't seen a single case of violation of an innocent citizen's rights due to the existence of the Patriot Act.

I have, however, seen 2,127 days without a terrorist attack on US soil.

That's good enough for me.

Elliot
This may be true, but such arguments defending it seem to fall under the brand of "Mussolini got the trains running on time" variety.

“Look, slavery is natural, just look how happy they are…just like little children…”

The 7 straw-men you cite shows you mis-read what I posted or that you’re…

Due process of law was the subject.

Dark Crow,


This may be true, but such arguments defending it seem to fall under the brand of "Mussolini got the trains running on time" variety.

I disagree. Mussolini WAS taking away the rights of others. He WAS acting like a dictator. People DID lose their rights and their lives under Mussolini. As I pointed out in my post, that is NOT true under the Patriot Act... there has been no loss of rights under the Patriot Act. Therefore, there is no real comparison.


Due process of law was the subject.

And I haven't seen any violation of due process of the law. Have you? That was my point. Each of the "straw man" arguments that I put forth was to show you that due process has NOT been violated. They are, therefore, not straw man arguments at all, but rather they are very germain to the topic at hand... due process. And again, I still have not seen a single violation of due process, or of people being jailed or criminalized based on anything in the Patriot Act.

Oh... you are probably going to point to the POWs as your proof that due process has been damaged by the Patriot Act.

Just one problem.

They are POWs, not criminals. They don't get due process. The GC actually prohibits trials of POWs for "crimes" they committed while acting as soldiers that do not violate the rules of war. You legally cannot put a soldier on trial for killing the enemy while in battle. Ergo, they are not criminals and there is no due process due to the POWs. They can and should be held until the cessation of hostilities, and it is not a violation of due process.

It is important to keep in mind that this was set forth in the GC, not by the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It is part of the agreed-upon rules of war and all parties to the GC follow those rules.

Elliot

Here's one I like to cite. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Clearly the Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the power of the executive during war time. No, I can't look at it as a philosophical proposition . There were no group more suspicious of the power of government then the founders ,and yet they still made for the provisions .

Dark Crow,



I disagree. Mussolini WAS taking away the rights of others. He WAS acting like a dictator. People DID lose their rights and their lives under Mussolini. As I pointed out in my post, that is NOT true under the Patriot Act... there has been no loss of rights under the Patriot Act. Therefore, there is no real comparison.



And I haven't seen any violation of due process of the law. Have you? That was my point. Each of the "straw man" arguments that I put forth was to show you that due process has NOT been violated. They are, therefore, not straw man arguments at all, but rather they are very germain to the topic at hand... due process. And again, I still have not seen a single violation of due process, or of people being jailed or criminalized based on anything in the Patriot Act.

Oh... you are probably going to point to the POWs as your proof that due process has been damaged by the Patriot Act.

Just one problem.

They are POWs, not criminals. They don't get due process. The GC actually prohibits trials of POWs for "crimes" they committed while acting as soldiers that do not violate the rules of war. You legally cannot put a soldier on trial for killing the enemy while in battle. Ergo, they are not criminals and there is no due process due to the POWs. They can and should be held until the cessation of hostilities, and it is not a violation of due process.

It is important to keep in mind that this was set forth in the GC, not by the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It is part of the agreed-upon rules of war and all parties to the GC follow those rules.

Elliot
That logic befuddles me; if you are not aware of what you’re not suppose to be aware of, it follows that it is not happening.:eek:

Now just because we know of no cases of arrest and confinement certainly does not mean there have not been any…that’s the point of the whole law… no one is supposed to know. The Patriot Act allows that a person can be held with-out due process- that means there is no public knowledge… if there were it would not be a suppression of due process.

Here's one I like to cite. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Clearly the Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the power of the executive during war time. No, I can't look at it as a philosophical proposition . There were no group more suspicious of the power of government then the founders ,and yet they still made for the provisions .
No, not war time..
True, the Constitution does allow for suspension- but…you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion which has so far not happened.
Article. I.
Section. 9.
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Jefferson said that when man trades his civil rights for a promise of security, he will have neither - civil rights nor security.

Well... there was Kent State, was that a rebellion

From today's Washington Post:


As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.
Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations--washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902065.html?hpid=topnews)

The question the article you cite poses is if Gonzalez lied to Congress during reauthorization hearings . On post #4 I pointed out that the law had been absed by the FBI.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. Shoddy record-keeping and human error were to blame for the bulk of the problems, they found no indication of criminal misconduct.FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. Gonzalez asked the auditors to do a follow-up investigation .

But this proves nothing except that the acts provisions were violated . You don't throw out a law because it has been violated . The Patriot act has been revised and renewed and will continue to be the focus of scrutiny and more revision. It has also been a valuable tool that as Elliot pointed out helped break the wall that kept valuable information away from decision makers pre- 9/11 .

Now just because we know of no cases of arrest and confinement certainly does not mean there have not been any…that’s the point of the whole law… no one is supposed to know.

And do you truly believe that with the ACLU, the MSM and CAIR, as well as a veritable army of "whistleblowers" doing everything they can to derail Bush and Co. that we wouldn't know it if it was happening? Get real.


The Patriot Act allows that a person can be held with-out due process- that means there is no public knowledge… if there were it would not be a suppression of due process.

Really? Have you heard the name Hamdi? How about Al Marri? Seems to me that we know quite well about the cases that people claim are violations of due process. And despite that fact, they seem to be all over the media. The Patriot Act hasn't prevented public knowledge of these cases.

Again, I don't see any violations of civil rights taking place. Unless you can show me that there are any such cases, YOURS is the strawman argument... a "what-if/slippery-slope" argument built out of a worst case scenario that has never occurred, for the specific purpose of discrediting the Patriot Act. That is, in fact, the exact definition of a strawman argument.

Elliot

Jefferson said that when man trades his civil rights for a promise of security, he will have neither - civil rights nor security.

Actually, it was Ben Franklin. And the correct quote was this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And I agree with Franklin. The problem with applying it to this situation is that we are not giving up any ESSENTIAL liberties, nor are we looking for a LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY. We are giving up nothing essential, in exchange for A LOT of PERMANENT safety. That's a whole different tradeoff that Franklin would have approved.

Here's something Jefferson really did say:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

And here's another one he said:

""A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."

And another:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Elliot

Actually, it was Ben Franklin. And the correct quote was this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And I agree with Franklin. The problem with applying it to this situation is that we are not giving up any ESSENTIAL liberties, nor are we looking for a LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY. We are giving up nothing essential, in exchange for A LOT of PERMANENT safety. That's a whole different tradeoff that Franklin would have approved.

Here's something Jefferson really did say:

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

And here's another one he said:

""A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."

And another:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Elliot
“It’s OK for our current Leaders to write Laws that violate Constitutional Law… so long as they are not enforced.”

That’s the message you are getting out and it verifies my analogy of the “Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland-- and can be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.

That is as Aristocrat an act as any act in the History of governance.

It rests solely on the discretion of Law enforcement as to whether it is, or is not enforced. Need I remind you of the indecencies committed in the past by law enforcement?

And what Constitutional Law are we discussing: Article. I.
Section. 9.
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:

From today's Washington Post:


Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations--washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902065.html?hpid=topnews)
“SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.


GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —"

What a fool…

Think Progress » Gonzales: 'There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution' (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/)

And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:Hello again, DC:

We do seem to have different reasoning, but our conclusions are the same, and they're dead on. Keep up the good fight. You're doing a great job keeping the Wolverine at bay.

excon

Hello again, DC:

We do seem to have different reasoning, but our conclusions are the same, and they're dead on. Keep up the good fight. You're doing a great job keeping the Wolverine at bay.

excon
Thank you Excon.

As I’m sure you are aware, it is not a matter of me vs. Wolverine, any more than it was a matter of Mr. Burke vs. Thomas Paine; it is a matter of right vs. wrong.

Personal rights, of which the right of habeas corpus is one, are a particular kind of property. To dispossess or rob another of his property or rights is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another. And if it is a Government that commits such an act, who can ever be secure?

Personal rights, of which the right of habeas corpus is one, are a particular kind of property. To dispossess or rob another of his property or rights is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another. Hello again,

Of course, the Wolverine would argue that they haven't taken away YOUR habeas corpus rights - just those that they declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.

They'll say that with a straight face, not realizing of course, that if the government declares THEM to be unlawful enemy combatants, there will be nobody to hear their plea that it doesn't apply to them.

I just thought I'd say that to see if I can waylay that argument. But, they'll come up with something. I guarantee it.

excon

Hello again,

Of course, the Wolverine would argue that they haven't taken away YOUR habeas corpus rights - just those that they declare to be unlawful enemy combatants.


excon
Similar to my analogy:


When questioned about the amendment those who supported it whispered… "It will only be applied to Niggers, not Jews or Italians, or any other Immigrants… just the Niggers."

Who declares whether one is an unlawful enemy combatant; perhaps our CIA whose conduct is pure as the driven snow, and who can claim… secrecy based on the country’s security?

“It’s OK for our current Leaders to write Laws that violate Constitutional Law… so long as they are not enforced.”

That’s the message you are getting out and it verifies my analogy of the “Progressive Democrat’s Digges Amendment of Maryland-- and can be used to disenfranchise minorities of their civil liberties.

No, my point all along has been that there are and have been no violations of the Constitution or civil rights. And as yet, you have not been able to prove otherwise.


That is as Aristocrat an act as any act in the History of governance.

It rests solely on the discretion of Law enforcement as to whether it is, or is not enforced. Need I remind you of the indecencies committed in the past by law enforcement?

Not at all. But I don't see them happening here. When they do occur, I will fight to change the laws and impose greater oversight. But until then, as I said in my original post, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


And what Constitutional Law are we discussing: Article. I.
Section. 9.
Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

If we are catching terrorists in this country, then they have invaded this country, and suspension of their rights of habeas corpus can be suspended for the safety of the public. If they are being caught in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, then they are unlawful combatants in a war, and therefore are not subject to habeas corpus, but rather to the rights granted to unlawful combatant POWs, which do not include habeas corpus. Again, there have been no violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.


And then you suggest we can depend on Human Rights Organizations for protection, when legal protection has been snatched away… what folly next?:eek:

I have NEVER suggested that we depend on human rights organizations for protection. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "human rights organization". Excon and I are in agreement that the only rights that one has are the ones he is willing to take for himself and protect by force of arms if necessary. Human rights organizations cannot grant me any rights or protetions that I am not willing to take for myself. It's one of the few things Excon and I actually agree upon. I never have and never would suggest such a thing, and I believe that the people who would rely on human rights groups to grant their liberty to them are sheeple who need to grow a backbone.

Elliot

Just an FYI.

I have spent the last 2 days on and off examining the criticism presented about the Patriot Act since it was passed and I find nothing about Americans being held without due process or having anything resembling habeas corpus suspension.According to Georgetown University professor Viet Dinh, who worked on the act when he was in the department of Justice, "The USA Patriot Act has become a brand. Activists lump everything that is objectionable about the war on terror, anything wrong with the world really, onto the USA Patriot Act. No more than 10 percent of what people ascribe to the [Patriot Act] on any given day, is in the Patriot Act itself."

I think you are referring to the Military Commissions Act.

The critique of the Patriot act was as follows (as the critics say it)

1. it grants government agencies the power to investigate people's private lives and to inhibit speech and activities protected by the First Amendment. It grants the government access to records held by third parties such as doctors, libraries, and Internet service providers, on the basis of the investigating agency's assertion that the records are related to an ongoing terrorist investigation.

2.It expands the ability of the government to conduct electronic searches without notifying the subjects until later, which to some violates the Fourth Amendment's ban against "unreasonable search and seizures "and "probable cause."

3. It created a crime of "domestic terrorism" which critics say is too vague .

4. By demolishing the "wall of separation" it puts the CIA in the domestic spy business.


Historically certain civil liberties have been curtailed in American History during times of war .We know also from history that they have never been permanent .The slippery slope theory proven again and again unfounded I would argue that over-all liberties have expanded way beyond what the founders imagined .Many of our perceived freedoms today would've been considered 'license' in the founders day. [Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom:
“When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant)]Therefore I believe Elliot is correct in his claim that the charge of abuse should be proven . Anything else is dealing in hypotheticals.

As I have pointed out in various debates about these issues ;The question comes down to a basic dispute about whether we are at war . I think if the enemy was a uniformed one like we've had in the past there would not be this debate (even though throughout history there have been some who gave cassandra warnings about the gvt. Security provisions that proved unfounded) .

From beginning to end in this thread I have perused by argument the answer to one question, and have been led down numerous trails which I never suggested existed, and are but fictions which I can only conclude were meant to detract from an unwanted conclusion.

a) The Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus stated in Article. I. Section. 9. Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
b) And if this is true, that is an unlawful act by the current legislature which is sworn to uphold the Constitution and therefore those guilty of this crime are Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.
c) There is no doubt that the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus exists, and the only question that remains is whether the Patriotic Act contains with-in it that suspension.
d) Any or all arguments to the contrary are moot and only justification for the crime committed.

DC

And twice I have pointed out that you are most likely not referring to the Patriot Act . Suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens is unconstitutional except under the conditions as you describe . The debatable point regarding the current situation is if one thinks that the al-Qaeda attacks can be considered " invasion ". But where the provisions of the law [most likey the Military Commissions Act ] applied to American citizens ,they have already been knocked down by the Hamdi decision.

DC

and twice I have pointed out that you are most likely not refering to the Patriot Act . Suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens is unconstitutional except under the conditions as you describe . The debatable point regarding the current situation is if one thinks that the al-Qaeda attacks can be considered " invasion ". But where the provisions of the law [most likey the Military Commisions Act ] applied to American citizens ,they have already been knocked down by the Hamdi decision.
You are correct in your assumption, for I have just read the act and it even allows aliens habeas corpus; the Patriotic Act does not contain with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus.

So much for my theory…but it was fun while it lasted and we got to the truth:eek:

USA Patriot Act Text (http://personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.htm)

DC,

I respect someone who is open to the possibility of having been in error. Well done.

Elliot

DC,

I respect someone who is open to the possibility of having been in error. Well done.

Elliot
While the premise: that the he Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus is false, the conclusion is true: any suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus by the current legislature would be guilty being Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.

Through-out this thread your arguments appear to have have justified the suspension of habeas corpus.

While the premise: that the he Patriotic Act contains with-in it the suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus is false, the conclusion is true: any suspension of the Constitutional Law of habeas corpus by the current legislature would be guilty being Traitors, and should be held accountable for their actions.

Through-out this thread your arguments appear to have have justified the suspension of habeas corpus.

No, DC. Throughout this thread I have argued that no such suspension of habeas corpus has taken place. Either because no such right existed in that case, or else because it just simply never occurred.